NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh

You can't deny that the NDP likes to make history by shattering old anachronistic traditions. It began way back in the early seventies in British Columbia when Rosemary Brown became the first black woman to be elected to a provincial legislature. It continued when the party chose Audrey McLaughlin as the first woman to lead a national political party in Canada.

Then, only two months ago, Wab Kinew was elected leader of the Manitoba NDP. Mr. Kinew has a real chance of being not only the first Indigenous leader of a party, but becoming the first Indigenous premier of one of the 10 provinces.

Now, the federal NDP has gone and done it again. In Jagmeet Singh, the party becomes the first party in Canada to put its diversity money where its mouth is.

Mr. Singh brings to the NDP qualities it has desperately needed since the debacle of the 2015 election: self-confidence, pride, ambition and a clear sense of social-justice goals based on egalitarian principles. The media loves him and he reciprocates. This is no small foundation on which Mr. Singh intends to build.

With his overwhelming victory, Mr. Singh now owns the orphan NDP. But he can't move far forward alone. Fortunately for him, he begins with an impressive team to flesh out his ambitions, beginning with his three leadership competitors. It's evident that of the four, Mr. Singh alone had the royal jelly, the ability to make his listeners soar to new heights. But each of his opponents brought real front-bench strength to the process. I take for granted that he called them first thing to ask them to be part of his new opposition front bench, and I take for granted they all agreed.

Niki Ashton is the beacon for activist youth. Guy Caron is the solid policy man, grounded in the kind of progressive economics that have always been the NDP's Achilles heel. Charlie Angus is the NDP everyman, a guy just like the rest of us except for his deep ties and commitment to Indigenous peoples. With Mr. Singh not in the House of Commons, these three will have their time to shine.

Still, there's a vast gap between confidence and cockiness. Smart New Democrats are never overconfident about their prospects. As the leadership candidates were repeatedly reminded, doing well in Quebec above all remains an elusive goal. I must confess to personal frustration here, that Quebec progressives seem so perversely inflexible on questions of secularism and politics. Believing that one's headdress should be more important than one's humanity seems to me bizarre and perverse. Maybe you can't understand it unless you're there, or from there. But it's a huge challenge for Mr. Singh and his team.

Otherwise, Mr. Singh begins with something like a tabula rasa when it comes to the NDP. Few Canadians could tell you what the party stands for, at least not in any detail. Sure, it's the party of the people. It's on the side of "hard-working Canadians." But who's not these days? What does the NDP stand for? Where are the fresh, new, creative policies that were once the NDP's stock-in-trade, that other parties rushed to steal? How would an NDP government drive the economy?

On the other hand, the Singh NDP finds itself blessed. As we've already seen, the freshness of the new leader promises media attention that's largely been lacking since the 2015 election. The Trudeau government has lost its early glow. It has, arguably, nowhere to go but down. A strong opposition could wound it, maybe even mortally. The Conservative Party has already demonstrated that it can't blow the Liberal house down. Its new leader – sorry, I can never seem to recall his name – is mostly memorable for being so forgettable.

Whatever else is true, we can be confident this will not be Mr. Singh's fate. This is not a man easily forgotten, as he has just demonstrated. He has overwhelmingly won over a party that mostly knew nothing about him until he belatedly threw his hat in the ring. But as we have seen, once met, he stays in the mind. He is a remarkable character, and Canadians will not ignore him easily. He does not, he asserts persuasively, back down from a challenge. Don't expect him to back down from this one.

Arguably one of Gerry Caplan's least insightful, and least prescient, articles to date.

Jagmeet Singh hardly "won over" the party. Rather he swarmed it by signing up tens of thousands of his co-religionists in a couple of urban centres. A triumph of ethnic bloc voting on a national scale. Accordingly, his election was more a cause for consternation than for celebration. Rank-and-file New Democrats--the ones who renew their membership annually and volunteer on campaigns--still don't know what hit them.

Arguably one of Gerry Caplan's least insightful, and least prescient, articles to date.

Jagmeet Singh hardly "won over" the party. Rather he swarmed it by signing up tens of thousands of his co-religionists in a couple of urban centres. A triumph of ethnic bloc voting on a national scale. Accordingly, his election was more a cause for consternation than for celebration. Rank-and-file New Democrats--the ones who renew their membership annually and volunteer on campaigns--still don't know what hit them.

He brought in new voters. It can only be right-wing and bigoted to make an issue of the ethnicity or religion of those voters(and the man also won the support of many non-Sikhs). I don't think he should have been leader, either, but Singh won for two main reasons, neither of which related to ethnic bloc-voting:

1) He had the support of the party bureaucracy, the insiders who wanted to make sure the end of the Mulcair era didn't lead to any actual changes in the party, especially the introduction of internal party democracy;

2) He was able to present himself as a figure of personal charisma who would be good on television.

There is no excuse for people of the left or even the "center-left" ever indulging in accusations of ethnic/religious conspiracy. Whatever anyone might think of Singh, Sihks do not have a political "hivemind" (there have been Sikh MPs in most federal or provincial parties) and they aren't driven solely by tribal loyalties to other Sikhs.

There is no excuse for people of the left or even the "center-left" ever indulging in accusations of ethnic/religious conspiracy.

Any politician is going to seek support from people who share the same values and interests. That's not a conspiracy, it's just basic organizing. As an Ontario MPP Singh was an outspoken advocate for Sikh interests both inside and outside Ontario. It's completely normal that he would seek support from Sikhs in his leadership campaign, just as Niki Ashton would seek support from feminists or what have you.

The Kinder Morgan protesters who dog Trudeau when he visits B.C. leave a false impression that he is unpopular and under siege. He’s not, and when contrasted with Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, he looks even better.

Scheer has a somewhat bland and uncharismatic style, which is safe but perhaps not good enough to grow his party’s support. Singh is largely unknown and seems to be unable to connect with the electorate.

While Singh has to be considered the slight favorite to win the Burnaby South byelection whenever it is held, it’s hard to see much success for him or his party other than that.

...Singh won for two main reasons, neither of which related to ethnic bloc-voting:

1) He had the support of the party bureaucracy, the insiders who wanted to make sure the end of the Mulcair era didn't lead to any actual changes in the party, especially the introduction of internal party democracy;

2) He was able to present himself as a figure of personal charisma who would be good on television.

Neither of those points comes close to explaining Singh's improbable ascent to the party leadership. None of the candidates, with the possible exception of Ashton, posed a serious threat to the established structure of the NDP. Indeed, that has been the case in all NDP leadership races except for the obvious case of Jim Laxer's candidacy in 1971 and, perhaps, Svend Robinson's in 1995. In other words, the prospect of a win by Charlie Angus or Guy Caron would not have given the party establishment cause to worry.

As for Singh's alleged appeal on TV, that was almost entirely an invention of the corporate media, which in turn appears to have influenced the thinking of some MPs and rank-and-file members. But very few veteran members of my acquaintance bought it. Nor, evidently, did most NDP supporters, much less the general public.

As to the relevance of ethnic bloc voting, and the unwillingness of too many NDPers to acknowledge it, I base my comments on personal experience with bulk sign-ups in the BC Lower Mainland, and on the observations of political scientists, such as Prof. Shinder Purewal:

It's too bad to see Linda go! I met her a couple times and she was one of the few politicians I have met that made a strong impression on me (it's funny how I connected with female NDP politicians from labour?)

But she's going to be 70 years old in like 6 months! Her retirement probably has to do with age I'm guessing?

Snippets & Link: "The list of New Democrats deciding not to run in 2019 is growing, depriving the party of experienced MPs and the electoral advantages of incumbency in some key ridings across the country.

These are significant losses for the party. Duncan has been the federal NDP's lone voice in Alberta ever since she was first elected in 2008. With Christopherson and Mathyssen leaving, Jenny Kwan, a former B.C. provincial cabinet minister, is the only MP in Singh's caucus with any cabinet experience — both Christopherson and Mathyssen served in Bob Rae's NDP government in Ontario in the early 1990s.

Laverdière and Saganash were two of the party's higher profile MPs in Quebec, with Laverdière twice defeating former Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe in his own riding. Mulcair's byelection victory in Outremont in 2007 was the first step in the party's breakthrough in Quebec in 2011.

These departures thin a front bench that had already been pared down in 2015...

... But it is not only the clout of the MPs sitting out the next election that should be of some concern to the NDP. As a share of caucus, more NDP MPs are not running again than in 2015. After winning 103 seats in 2011, about 13 per cent of that caucus did not run for re-election four years later.

The NDP is already up to 16 per cent of its initial caucus of 44 with another year to go before the next election campaign officially kicks off. The number of New Democrats who have decided not to go for another term is roughly the same as the number of Conservatives and Liberals — combined — who have come to the same conclusion...

Yet, there is a natural cycle to MPs choosing not to run for re-election. Christopherson was first elected to federal office in 2004, Mathyssen in 2006 and Duncan in 2008. ... But whether these departures signify a deeper malaise within the NDP or not, they still have the potential to hurt the party....

... Losing a familiar name on the ballot will not help the New Democrats in these tight races...

... Regardless, this may be an early sign that things aren't heading in the right direction for the NDP.

"...Singh's tweet was met with incredulous anger from many Twitter users. Many people experienced anger that the leader of Canada's left-wing third party would praise a staunch Republican conservative who supported military interventions around the world. Most of the criticism appeared to come from people with progressive politics, who may be traditional supporters of the NDP...'You could have said nothing. Who was this tweet for?"'

Since assuming the top job in his party last October, Mr. Singh has had to exert his authority over 42 NDP MPs in Ottawa from the outside looking in. As strategies go, it’s been a washout. Many people in the country don’t know who he is. A seat in the House of Commons where he’d have the chance to go head-to-head with the Prime Minister would help address that.

Meantime, he’s jumped from one self-inflicted controversy to the next. He’s been criticized for everything, from his badly botched handling of questions around Sikh terrorism to campaigning against the Kinder Morgan pipeline while simultaneously suggesting Canada import oil from countries other than Saudi Arabia as a way of penalizing the Kingdom for recent sanctions. To say his performance has been uneven would be kind.

With a year to go before the next election, and the NDP’s fortunes in decline in key parts of the country (see Quebec, where the NDP recently suffered a humiliating loss in a by-election in Chicoutimi, a riding the party won in 2011), Mr. Singh needs to turn things around – and fast. To that end, he announced he will run in a by-election in Burnaby South, a seat that will be officially vacated next month by NDP MP Kennedy Stewart, who’s running for mayor of Vancouver. ...

... While Burnaby has long been considered NDP territory, both federally and provincially, the riding is changing. Mr. Stewart won by just over 500 votes in 2015. Recent polls show the federal NDP down in B.C. from where it was three years ago. And then there is the matter of what people in the province think of Mr. Singh. The fact that he seemingly had to be pushed into denouncing the glorification by some Sikh groups of Talwinder Singh Parmar, widely regarded as the mastermind of the 1985 Air India bombing, did not reflect well on him. He’s also had to explain his previous associations with Sikh militants.

“I don’t think that stuff will be an issue in the by-election,” former Liberal MP and B.C. NDP premier Ujjal Dosanjh told me this week. “It’s more a case of the views people formed about him as a result of the publicity it generated, which was not good at all. He didn’t handle himself gloriously and he will probably live to regret it.” ...

... So when will the by-election be held? The government has to call it within six months of when Mr. Kennedy terminates his duties as MP, which is scheduled to be Sept. 14, the day he plans to officially file his papers to run for mayor. The honourable thing would be to announce the vote as early as possible. But there may be other considerations.

If the Liberals believe Mr. Singh is ultimately an asset to them (because he’s a weak leader unable to lead the NDP to serious gains) then maybe they want to hold off as long as possible. This keeps the NDP leader out of the House of Commons. But maybe more importantly, should he lose a spring by-election, it would make it nearly impossible for the NDP to dump their leader with a general election just a few months away.

Either way, there is a lot on the line for Mr. Singh. He needs to start demonstrating that he isn’t the mistake many are suggesting he is."

"...Singh's tweet was met with incredulous anger from many Twitter users. Many people experienced anger that the leader of Canada's left-wing third party would praise a staunch Republican conservative who supported military interventions around the world. Most of the criticism appeared to come from people with progressive politics, who may be traditional supporters of the NDP...'You could have said nothing. Who was this tweet for?"'

Who was this tweet for?

Real good question! Speculation time.

Could be that Jagmeet is trying to purge the true socialist intellects out of the NDP and invite more materialistic greedy easily manipulated neoliberals to fill the void? This theory would fit with the projected cource the party appears to be on.

I think that if the federal NDP crash at the 2019 polls, it's very possible that we social intellects will say enough is enough with the NDP and start a new real political movement with a mantra of true core values to never veer away from.

The Kinder Morgan protesters who dog Trudeau when he visits B.C. leave a false impression that he is unpopular and under siege. He’s not, and when contrasted with Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, he looks even better.

Scheer has a somewhat bland and uncharismatic style, which is safe but perhaps not good enough to grow his party’s support. Singh is largely unknown and seems to be unable to connect with the electorate.

While Singh has to be considered the slight favorite to win the Burnaby South byelection whenever it is held, it’s hard to see much success for him or his party other than that.

Quoting Keith Baldry on BC politics is a new low for babble. He has been a nasty anti-NDP talking head for decades. He is an asshole and his views reflect whatever the Howe Street oligarchy needs the masses to hear.

I think that if the federal NDP crash at the 2019 polls, it's very possible that we social intellects will say enough is enough with the NDP and start a new real political movement with a mantra of true core values to never veer away from.

I meant to write socialist intellectual(ism) in that second paragraph.

This would include staying true to core values, never straying away, least of all for votes. Posters like myself and NDPP if not very many posters here at babble I believe would fit this definition. Recognizing materialism as a weapon of corporate imperialism. Anti war/military, pro green renewable energy, equal treatment, blindness to someones gender background orientation etc etc. Accepting humans are not any more intelligent and or have more right than any other life form. Atheism. Accepting humans are in fact not very intelligent to start with and our thought is always expanding evolving. Perhaps another 50 other things

Perhaps if I can give it more thought, it's probably something worthy of it's own thread

This would include staying true to core values, never straying away, least of all for votes. Posters like myself and NDPP if not very many posters here at babble I believe would fit this definition.

And a child shall lead them. With another child.

Quote:

Atheism.

As someone who really doesn't worship any gods, I can't argue too hard here, but when someone leads with "atheism" like it's the Right Bower and they're going alone, I do wonder why that should be added to any list of reasonable beliefs. Sure, it's reasonable (IMHO) but not any more reasonable than not believing in vampires.

Jagmeet Singh hardly "won over" the party. Rather he swarmed it by signing up tens of thousands of his co-religionists in a couple of urban centres. A triumph of ethnic bloc voting on a national scale. Accordingly, his election was more a cause for consternation than for celebration. Rank-and-file New Democrats--the ones who renew their membership annually and volunteer on campaigns--still don't know what hit them.

I don't have any issue with him signing up new members. The more the merrier I say. Especially in an era when membership in political parties is declining. We need all the new blood we can get. And frankly, that's the way leadership campaigns work in any party. The leadership candidiates all try and get as many people to sign up as they can so that they will win. Nothing wrong with that. The real issue, IMO, is that Singh hasn't been able to keep them in the party, keep them engaged and interested, and to say to them, "thank you for your support, now here's what you can do next to help us out." Sure there is always a natural fall-off after any leadership campaign is finished, but if you can't keep these people interested after you win, what's the point?

Look, I don't think Singh is doing a good job as leader, and if he loses the byelection, I'd say it would no longer tenable for him to continue as leader. But, please, for the love of God, can we please take this away from "ethnic bloc voting" canard? The argument that Singh only won because he brought in Sikhs to vote for him is the kind of demagogy Maxime Bernier would traffic in. The polls in the leadership race always showed Singh in the lead, and did not show radically different preferences in candidate support between non-Sikh and Sikh voters.

It's productive to critique Singh's leadership, to question his choices in the job, to offer suggestions for what he might do differently, to debate whether or not he should stay on, and to suggest possible alternate choices for the leadership. It is neither productive nor appropriate to try and make a case that Singh's victory in the last leadership contest was illegitimate, or to ever, EVER dabble in the language of ethnic conspiracy. Ethnic conspiracy allegations are what the right does. Attempts to impugn the integrity of an ethnic community, to imply that community has earned collective distrust within a political party, are the kind of things Maxime Bernie does.

It's what has happened since the leadership was elected that matters, not the demographics of the coalition which elected the leader the party currently has.

Can we please focus on the present and the future, and on inclusion rather than on stoking unjustified ethnic/racial paranoia?

It doesn't matter why or how Singh was elected. What matters is what he has done since what he intends on doing, and whether he should stay in the position he currently holds. Also, it was a cheap shot to post an article dredging up, yet again, the non-issue of his views on what happened on an Air India flight WHEN HE WAS A CHILD.

If you want to help avoid an NDP disaster, then let's talk about that. If you have issues with Singh due to his being a Sikh, you are not on the left or even the center-left and to my mind it might fairly be asked whether the hell you should be posting on a progressive board.

The federal Court of Appeal's overturning of the Liberal government's approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion because it failed to adequately deal with environmental and indigenous issues in the approval process should help Singh in the South Burnaby byelection. The NDP is the only major party running in the byelection that is opposed to the expansion of the pipeline, while the Liberals are now dragging behind themselves an enormous white elephant with the purchase of their purchase of the pipeline and the Conservatives were also involved in the pipeline's approval process.

The Kinder Morgan protesters who dog Trudeau when he visits B.C. leave a false impression that he is unpopular and under siege. He’s not, and when contrasted with Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, he looks even better.

Scheer has a somewhat bland and uncharismatic style, which is safe but perhaps not good enough to grow his party’s support. Singh is largely unknown and seems to be unable to connect with the electorate.

While Singh has to be considered the slight favorite to win the Burnaby South byelection whenever it is held, it’s hard to see much success for him or his party other than that.

Quoting Keith Baldry on BC politics is a new low for babble. He has been a nasty anti-NDP talking head for decades. He is an asshole and his views reflect whatever the Howe Street oligarchy needs the masses to hear.

I have no idea who Keith Baldry is, but the quote I copied certainly doesn't seem particularly "nasty". Don't shoot the messenger. And feel free to post any pro-Singh/pro-NDP articles or editorials you can find. Best of luck with that.

I have no idea who Keith Baldry is, but the quote I copied certainly doesn't seem particularly "nasty". Don't shoot the messenger. And feel free to post any pro-Singh/pro-NDP articles or editorials you can find. Best of luck with that.

The Federal Court of Appeal's quashing of the completely inadequate approvals of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion by the Liberal and Conservative governments over environmental and indigenous objections and the purchase of the pipeline by the Liberal governments will help the NDP and Singh in the South Burnaby byelection and in BC generally.

Also, the area burned by BC wildfires yesterday reached 12,984 square km, an area more than twice the size of PEI and more than one third the size of Vancouver Island, breaking the 2017 record for the largest area burned in a single wildfire season with over a month to go in the season, thereby demonstrating the rapidly growing risks of global warming. This will also be in the minds of voters when they consider who to vote for, parties that support more fossil fuel flowing through the province, or those who oppose this. Ignoring global warming's consquences on the environment, economy, health and safety will increasingly be difficult to maintain in elections.

I have no idea who Keith Baldry is, but the quote I copied certainly doesn't seem particularly "nasty". Don't shoot the messenger. And feel free to post any pro-Singh/pro-NDP articles or editorials you can find. Best of luck with that.

Then maybe you should get to know BC's political culture before you post quotes from assholes. In American terms it would be like quoting Rush Limbaugh as an authority on the Democrats. I am sure that if you quoted equilvalent editorilists from the French media in Quebec you would get a similar reaction from progressives like Lagatta

I think you may have forgotten the purpose of this forum. Quoting people who have made their living for decades by attacking everything progressive hardly seems to be a dialogue about progressive thought.

In defining itself as "progressive," rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and as such encourages discussions which develop and expand progressive thought.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Climate leaders don't buy or expand pipelines.

And climate followers don't buy SUVs because their kid plays hockey, whine about a 0.2 cent hike in the price of gas at their local service station, or drive that SUV with that pricier gas 6 miles to CostCo to save three dollars on six cases of bottled American water.

But here we are anyway.

I've also said that before, and I'll probably also say it again. Fixing the environment doesn't mean "getting rid of those Liberals". It means making changes. Who's in? Who's ready to forgo that airline trip? Who's ready to ride public transit with their nose in some stranger's armpit? Who's ready to drink from a tap? No government is going to wave a magic wand and make it so the other 99.9999% of us don't have to do anything different.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Climate leaders don't buy or expand pipelines.

And climate followers don't buy SUVs because their kid plays hockey, whine about a 0.2 cent hike in the price of gas at their local service station, or drive that SUV with that pricier gas 6 miles to CostCo to save three dollars on six cases of bottled American water.

But here we are anyway.

I've also said that before, and I'll probably also say it again. Fixing the environment doesn't mean "getting rid of those Liberals". It means making changes. Who's in? Who's ready to forgo that airline trip? Who's ready to ride public transit with their nose in some stranger's armpit? Who's ready to drink from a tap? No government is going to wave a magic wand and make it so the other 99.9999% of us don't have to do anything different.

Bravo. A Govt., any Govt. can not do anything until the public buys in.

Everybody is a climate change fighter until the fight costs them an extra nickel.

Gee you went from "everybody" to "most people" in a heart beat. Actually it is almost every right wing troll who thinks that and definitely most people who vote Conservative. None of my friends or family believe the nonsense you spout.

Gee you went from "everybody" to "most people" in a heart beat. Actually it is almost every right wing troll who thinks that and definitely most people who vote Conservative. None of my friends or family believe the nonsense you spout.

In fairness, I think there are both those who are willing to pay the price of a fight to save the planet and those who will talk about it so long as it is politically or economicaly profitable.

I would stop well before saying everyone -- but there are a lot of people who do what many would call virtue signaling on this but won't put any money where their supposed concerns are. The fact that much of corporate Canada is in this category and they have the biggest clout in terms of being heard is only part of the problem.

A majority say they are concerned about climate change and yet a minority actually support the real significant measures that would do something about it -- or support parties that really would do anything. A large number of people support a party that talks about climate change and yet does very little.

Either

1) about 40% of Canadians are stupidly supporting the Liberal party to do something about the environment and other important progressive issues without consideration or awareness that the party has a pattern of talk without meaningful action

or

2) this is what they are voting for -- mostly talk in order to make them feel better without meaningful action

Sure, you might think a number of Canadians are stupid enough to vote for the party of bait and switch - but you have to recognize that there is enough history here that a large number of them must actually support this bait and switch policy.

Bravo. A Govt., any Govt. can not do anything until the public buys in.

Everybody is a climate change fighter until the fight costs them an extra nickel.

Some who have commented on the Trans Mountain pipeline and global warming have argued that those raising concerns about the pipeline or climate change are being hypocritical because they use fossil fuels themselves or because they are not raising concerns about other ethical issues. This reminds me of an old legal adage: when the facts are in your favour, argue the facts; when the facts are against you, make an ad hominem attack. Whether people live up to their ideals does not change the facts.

People’s values and the issues related to them are often in conflict. We are biologically designed because of evolution to focus on immediate problems rather than long-terms ones, no matter how serious the latter are. After all, if you do not escape the burning forest or are killed by the toxic fumes from a pipeline spill, you will not have to worry about climate change anymore. However, paraphrasing what Will Travers, executive director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, said in a CBC National broadcast a few years ago, people are going to first focus on paying their mortgage, balancing a budget, getting into a postsecondary institution or paying their tuition, rather than the long-term impacts of climate change, no matter how serious those impacts are. This is despite the fact that the people living in the San Francisco Bay area are facing more than $100 billion in costs for building levees and other measures to counteract a one metre expected rise in sea levels that would permanently flood the Bay’s business and other districts.

Similarly, according to a 2012 BC provincial government report, called Cost of Adaptation - Sea Dikes and Alternative Strategies, similar measures to counteract sea level rise in Metro Vancouver could cost $9.5 billion in order to protect Vancouver, Richmond, Delta and Surrey, from sea level rise.

Two days ago, 2018 became the worst BC wildfire season ever in terms of area burned with over a month left in the wildfire season. The burned area already is 2.3 times the size of Prince Edward Island, breaking the record set just last year. Firefighting costs for the province for the two years likely to break $1 billion, in addition to which we have the costs of the homes and property destroyed, and the government emergency housing and food expenses, to say nothing of the extensive damage done to the tourist, forest, salmon fishing, and even solar energy (due to the extensive smoke accompanying the wildfires).

However, this is only the beginning of the costs associated with climate change in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and globally. Many of 40 the small island countries are already planning moving their entire populations as sea level rise covers their homelands and some have even bought land elsewhere to move their people because they believe we are not acting fast enough. Region by region the costs of global warming are becoming prohibitive for everyone.

We can blame others or we can take action as individuals, as communities and through our governments. It won't be perfect. Life never is, but that is not an excuse to avoid taking action.

I have no idea who Keith Baldry is, but the quote I copied certainly doesn't seem particularly "nasty". Don't shoot the messenger. And feel free to post any pro-Singh/pro-NDP articles or editorials you can find. Best of luck with that.

Then maybe you should get to know BC's political culture before you post quotes from assholes. In American terms it would be like quoting Rush Limbaugh as an authority on the Democrats. I am sure that if you quoted equilvalent editorilists from the French media in Quebec you would get a similar reaction from progressives like Lagatta

I think you may have forgotten the purpose of this forum. Quoting people who have made their living for decades by attacking everything progressive hardly seems to be a dialogue about progressive thought.

In defining itself as "progressive," rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and as such encourages discussions which develop and expand progressive thought.

Dude, all I did was read an article online and share a portion of it that pertained to the topic at hand (Singh). What I shared was quite middle-of-the-road commentary, and far from offensive. I think it's ludicrous to expect people to research the entire political history of an author prior to sharing a (inoffensive) quote from them. Frankly, you have one of the most disagreeable, dictatorial, holier-than-thou attitudes I've ever encountered. Not just to me, but to other posters in this thread as well. You'd catch more flies with honey, as the saying goes.

"The NDP hierarchy's response to noted warhawk John McCain's death is shameful. Even worse, it reflects a general hostility towards the victims of Western imperialism. Somebody should buy Jagmeet Singh a T-shirt that says: 'I pissed on the world's downtrodden to ingratiate myself with the mainstream establishment but all I got was this lousy shirt."

When will NDP supporters do something about the disgusting state of this party?

Dude, all I did was read an article online and share a portion of it that pertained to the topic at hand (Singh). What I shared was quite middle-of-the-road commentary, and far from offensive. I think it's ludicrous to expect people to research the entire political history of an author prior to sharing a (inoffensive) quote from them.

In an article devoted primarily to the Conservatives and Liberals because of a potental new party on the right this is the parting shot he takes at the NDP. But then again most people read right through the embedded biases and don't understand the sublimimal effect they have on the discourse.

If you had posted it in the thread on Bernier and left out the gratuitious slur about the NDP then I likely would not have said anything. You posted it in this thread about the NDP and the only thing thing he said was in fact a biased parting shot unrelated to the topic of the article. That is what I mean about Baldry, no matter what the topic is he slams the NDP somewhere in the article. He has been paid to that by the most right wing paper owners in this province for decades.

So since you are offended by my comments about him why did you post this article in this thread and not about the right wingers he's talking about. I am sorry if I mistook your innocent naivity for not so subtle trashing of the NDP.

While Singh has to be considered the slight favorite to win the Burnaby South byelection whenever it is held, it’s hard to see much success for him or his party other than that.

Gee you went from "everybody" to "most people" in a heart beat. Actually it is almost every right wing troll who thinks that and definitely most people who vote Conservative. None of my friends or family believe the nonsense you spout.

Ok you got me I am a right wing troll. I hope that made you happy. And you and your friends family represent a fair sample of the canadian population. I bow to you, your friends and family for setting the standard high. I, my friends and family are not deserving of being in the same discussion as your progressive highness and I apologise for that.

BTW "Most people" in Canada make decisions for "everybody".

And yes sorry my opinion is 'nonsense'. And your, your friends and your families opinion is the wisest thing that has ever been spouted.

Then, when Prime Minister Trudeau called out a heckler for her rant against asylum seekers, Scheer was quick to step in with his own divisive rhetoric. “This is how you can tell when Liberals are losing,” he tweeted. “Concerned about illegal border crossers? You’re a racist. Worried about the cost? You’re un-Canadian.”

But the Conservative agenda isn’t just about undermining citizenship access for immigrants. It’s fuelling discrimination against all racialized communities. And it ignores the reality that with the exception of Indigenous peoples, we are pretty much all immigrants.

We can blame others or we can take action as individuals, as communities and through our governments. It won't be perfect. Life never is, but that is not an excuse to avoid taking action.

I agree and that was exactly the point I was trying to make. The action about climate change has to come from individuals, until 'most people' are ready to sacrifice the Govts can not do much, since they usually reflect what 'most voters' want.

Sure, you might think a number of Canadians are stupid enough to vote for the party of bait and switch - but you have to recognize that there is enough history here that a large number of them must actually support this bait and switch policy.

"The NDP hierarchy's response to noted warhawk John McCain's death is shameful. Even worse, it reflects a general hostility towards the victims of Western imperialism. Somebody should buy Jagmeet Singh a T-shirt that says: 'I pissed on the world's downtrodden to ingratiate myself with the mainstream establishment but all I got was this lousy shirt."

When will NDP supporters do something about the disgusting state of this party?

Sorry but I'm going to engage in some thread drift here. But I must!

I read the article, very good and I agree mostly, except for one thing. That world war 2 was just! No war is just. All war is a result of human failure. Always!